Ensco Offshore Company, et al v. Kenneth Salazar, et al

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [11-30491 Dismissed for lack of Jurisdiction] Judge: TMR , Judge: CH , Judge: JEG Mandate pull date is 06/12/2012; granting motion to dismiss appeal for lack of jurisdiction filed by Appellees Ensco Offshore Co and ATP Oil & Gas Corporation [6866731-2]; mooting motion to stay further proceedings in this court filed by Appellees Ensco Offshore Co and ATP Oil & Gas Corporation [6866731-3]; mooting motion to remand case filed by Appellees Ensco Offshore Co and ATP Oil & Gas Corporation [6866731-5]; denying motion to vacate the judgment of the district court filed by Appellants Sierra Club and Center for Biological Diversity [6860332-2] [11-30491]

Case: 11-30491

Document: 00511864048

Page: 1

Date Filed: 05/22/2012

United States Court of Appeals
FIFTH CIRCUIT
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
LYLE W. CAYCE
CLERK

TEL. [phone]
600 S. MAESTRI PLACE
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130

May 22, 2012
MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL OR PARTIES LISTED BELOW
Regarding: Fifth Circuit Statement on Petitions for Rehearing or
Rehearing En Banc
No. 11-30491, Ensco Offshore Company, et al v. Kenneth
Salazar, et al
USDC No. 2:10-CV-1941
--------------------------------------------------Enclosed is a copy of the court's decision.
The court has
entered judgment under FED. R. APP. P. 36. (However, the opinion
may yet contain typographical or printing errors which are
subject to correction.)
FED. R. APP. P. 39 through 41, and 5TH CIR. RULES 35, 39, and 41
govern costs, rehearings, and mandates. 5TH CIR. RULES 35 and 40
require you to attach to your petition for panel rehearing or
rehearing en banc an unmarked copy of the court's opinion or
order. Please read carefully the Internal Operating Procedures
(IOP's) following FED. R. APP. P. 40 and 5TH CIR. R. 35 for a
discussion of when a rehearing may be appropriate, the legal
standards applied and sanctions which may be imposed if you make
a nonmeritorious petition for rehearing en banc.
Direct Criminal Appeals.
5TH CIR. R. 41 provides that a motion
for a stay of mandate under FED. R. APP. P. 41 will not be
granted simply upon request.
The petition must set forth good
cause for a stay or clearly demonstrate that a substantial
question will be presented to the Supreme Court. Otherwise, this
court may deny the motion and issue the mandate immediately.
Pro Se Cases.
If you were unsuccessful in the district court
and/or on appeal, and are considering filing a petition for
certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, you do not need to
file a motion for stay of mandate under FED. R. APP. P. 41. The
issuance of the mandate does not affect the time, or your right,
to file with the Supreme Court.
The judgment entered provides that appellants pay to appellees
the costs on appeal.
Sincerely,
LYLE W. CAYCE, Clerk
By:_________________________
Rhonda M. Flowers, Deputy Clerk
Enclosure(s)
Mr. Noel Terry Adams Jr.
Mr. Adam Babich
Mr. Brit Todd Brown
Mr. Benjamin A Escobar

Case: 11-30491

Document: 00511864048

Mr. Adam P. Feinberg
Mr. George J. Fowler III
Ms. Monica K Reimer

Page: 2

Date Filed: 05/22/2012